Seth Brundle wrote: » With regard to cars being more visible to help prevent collisions, you can't get much more noticeable than being in a loud yellow Lambo Aventador during daylight and stopped at traffic lights. Somehow his buddy in another loud yellow Aventador manages to rear end him. But according to the anti-cyclists here, cars are visible enough as it is. How could that be?Yellow Aventador Rear-Ends Identical Yellow Aventador
TaurenDruid wrote: » It's amazing how motorists never drive through red lights, they usually sail through them or fly through them. i guess poetic licence could be used for the former, if you've a good tailwind.
TaurenDruid wrote: » It is not.
TaurenDruid wrote: » Eh - an accident involving someone who is apparently a serial offender, who had been illegally street racing on multiple occasions, and sought to cover up this incident by removing the licence plates? I'd say he's a bit of a knob, and - I know this is a bit of a stretch here, but bear with me - not your typical motorist.
Spook_ie wrote: » Probably for the usual reason of rear end accidents one stopped when the other didn't
07Lapierre wrote: » The Stag was Brown.
karlitob wrote: » While we all hear about road deaths, we rarely hear about those drivers who end up in the NRH and who would have benefited from wearing a helmet.
railer201 wrote: » Dart boards are the same - with half the segments bright yellow, I find the darts still hit the board - very puzzling indeed. Maybe that's not the function of high-viz though, once it's done the 'highly conspicuous bit', then that's it - perhaps we're expecting too much, don't you think ?
meeeeh wrote: » (The sad truth is that if more people start cycling you will absolutely hate it because pensioners will be too slow and pesky kids will be taking up space on the cycling paths.)
SeanW wrote: » Motorists already have seat belts and airbags. If you're in a car and an accident is bad enough that your seat belt and airbag don't protect you, a helmet wouldn't make any difference. That's why motorists don't wear them.
meeeeh wrote: » What I find interesting is how you guys spend your free time. Looking do web cam footage of someone doing something wrong, constantly recording and finding anyone who is less than perfect and keeping a file on them, finding the most obscure links to argue the same stuff over and over again.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Nah, we'll love it - because if the cycle paths get crowded with the newbies, we'll just move out onto the main traffic lane.
meeeeh wrote: » It doesn't work that way. Where I come from there are plenty of pensioners (usually a couple) who cycle longer distances even where there are no cycling paths. I'd like to see how will that work when you come upon them in some roundabout.
LeinsterDub wrote: » But if a helmet saves one life right?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I'll look over my shoulder, and if safe, I'll move out and pass them. If it's not safe, I'll wait behind them. Do you actually know how to drive?
karlitob wrote: » If drivers feel that cyclists must wear luminous jackets and helmets, then by the same logic cars should also be luminous and drivers should also wear helmets. You would certainly notice a luminous car. While we all hear about road deaths, we rarely hear about those drivers who end up in the NRH and who would have benefited from wearing a helmet.
meeeeh wrote: » I do. What is that supposed to mean? Considering your rage on this thread I don't think you would find it that easy when other road users will be in your way.
Spook_ie wrote: » Luminous = Gives out light....Strange thing is that cars are fitted with luminous bits called lights
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Yes, one of those completely unavoidable accidents I guess - no-one can think of any possible way that anyone could have avoided crashing into a car stopped at traffic lights.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » It is a blatant lie, though again it is interesting to see the wide gap between what I said and what others said that I said. But feel free to prove me wrong anytime with link to the post where I said that " he never sees cyclists with phones!
karlitob wrote: » And yet they still die.
Thargor wrote: » Wow you got a source for that? Thats amazing. Or did you just pull it out of your a$$ because you dont have the slightest clue what you're talking about?
SeanW wrote: » I know for a fact that a motorist is going to have a wide variety of safety systems. Seat belts. Airbags, crumple zones. ABS. Traction control systems. etc. I doubt your bike has any of that, hence the suggestion that cyclists should compensate by wearing a helmet, so that there's something between their skull and the pavement or a wall if the worst should occur. I also know that the accidents where motor users die tend to occur at very high velocity. Things like head-on collisions which can occur at 200kph (more if one of the drivers was speeding) resulting in both cars being smashed into a million pieces, or accidents involving between cars and lorries that result in the car being flattened like a pancake. If YOU wish to assert that motorists wearing helmets will make a blind bit of difference in such cases, it is for YOU to provide evidence for that case. Yet you have given zero evidence or even suggest good cause that this might be the case!
